The European Court sent Intel case on abuses for reconsideration

POSTER:computer news || THE EUROPEAN COURT SENT INTEL CASE ON ABUSES FOR RECONSIDERATION

DATE:2017-09-07

The European Commission in 2006 decided that Intel abused its position in the market and used financial incentives to work with partners to prevent competitors from entering the market. In particular, in Europe, the Media-Saturn trading network, as well as the four largest manufacturers of ready-made PCs: Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC were involved in similar frauds. Decision of Intel Commission was ordered to pay a fine of 1.06 billion euros, and at the same time stop using such incentive measures, working against the main competitor in the face of AMD.

In 2014, Intel's appeal against this EC decision was rejected by the European Tribunal of General Jurisdiction, and the company appealed to the European Court of Higher Jurisdiction, trying to challenge the claims of the European Commission, demanding a more detailed examination of all the circumstances of the case and a proportional reduction in the amount of the fine. Now on the website of the profile judicial body of the EU there was a press release with information about the extension of the time for considering the case of Intel abuse by its position on the European market. The case will be returned to the European Tribunal of General Jurisdiction for a second consideration, since the highest authority requires a more thorough examination of all the circumstances. It is necessary to establish a more obvious link between Intel's financial incentives and the company's ability to restrict competition through these measures. A court of higher jurisdiction requires the European Tribunal to pay more attention to Intel's arguments.

However, it can not be asserted that the European Court went against Intel. At the very least, the highest court in the EU rejected Intel's claims concerning territorial restriction of jurisdiction, and did not take into account the procedural violations that the representatives of the company's interests referred to. According to the plaintiff's version, these violations allegedly limited the rights of the corporation to defense in court.